We’re just like you...only prettier

One thing I hate is when politicians, most of whom are millionaires, try to make themselves out to be just regular guys. It’s a weak effort to try and connect with their constituents who make far less money, and work much harder for it.

The latest example of this came last week when a spat erupted over whether or not stay-at-home moms actually work. The fact that this was even questioned should have been a dead give away that politicians and their ilk live far different lives than most of us. For most of us who grew up with a stay at home mom or is married to one,  it’s not really a question. We see the work that they do and not through the filter of nanny’s, au pairs or a staff. 

But millionaire politicians can’t help but to look down upon the masses and try to their best to convince us that they are just like us.

Remember the “Beer Summit” where the President sipped a Bud Light on back patio while he and his guests tackled a tricky racial issue? Just like regular folk.

After all everyone knows that the best way to solve those really tricky, controversial, issues is after you’ve had a few. 

“I noticed this has been called the ‘Beer Summit.’ It’s a clever term, but this is not a summit, guys,” Obama told reporters. “This is three folks having a drink at the end of the day, and hopefully giving people an opportunity to listen to each other. And that’s really all it is. This is not a university seminar” is what the president said at the time. 

If the President wanted to add some real authenticity he could have put on a pair of shorts and a tank top and mowed the lawn prior to the “summit.” I wonder if the President or Mitt Romney has ever pushed a lawn mower in their lives? I somehow doubt it.

So when Democratic Consultant, Hilary Rosen got into hot water for saying Mitt Romney’s wife never worked the President just couldn’t help tossing in his two cents, noting that as struggling Harvard Law School grads pulling down a combined $479,062 a year, that the Obama’s could not afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home. 

“Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling,” he said. “And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.”

So they were just a couple of struggling young people trying to make it in this big ol world. Got it, but even without her $316,000 salary he was still making $162,000 a year. That would seem to be a comfortable amount for many Americans.

In 2010, according to wage statistics from the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2010)  the median paycheck — half made more, half less — fell again in 2010, down 1.2 percent to $26,364. That works out to $507 a week, the lowest level, after adjusting for inflation, since 1999.

Over 66 % earned less than $39,959.

Yet in politicians minds, a person making $162,000 a year is just a regular guy who drinks beer, and who’s wife has to work to make ends meet. Right.

Mr. Obama’s salary is far more than my wife and I make put together and I doubt he has worried about a mortgage payment, fretted over a stack of bills, wondered what he should fix first, the car or replace some household appliance that has gone on the fritz. Do you suppose he understands what it means to have to play the timing game between writing a check for groceries and the deposit of a paycheck? Does Mitt?

And the thing is we are the lucky ones. We have jobs, good jobs, but there are others, in increasing numbers lately, who make far less than even we do. Some make nothing at all. 

That’s the problem with being a regular guy, it doesn’t take much of a miss-step to send it all crashing to the ground. I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Romney and the President have a much larger margin of error. 

Despite the outrage over her comments, Hilary Rosen was right about one thing, Ann Romney, and Michelle Obama for that matter, never HAD to work outside of the home a day in their lives. But it was certainly disingenuous to imply that stay at home moms don’t work or that Ann Romney’s situation is all that different from Michelle Obama’s. It is equally disingenuous for the President to imply that his financial situation was anything remotely similar to most Americans.

Politicians who play this game are making a fundamental mistake. We know that these people aren’t regular “folks,” as much as they would like us to believe it. What they seem to be missing is that we don’t want our presidents to live like us, we would much rather live like our presidents. We aspire to achieve a better standard of living, one much like what they are living now. That’s why we get up and go to work every day, despite the struggles.

I’m thankful that my wife and I are able to live comfortably and take care of our family. And I hope that, through hard work, our lives will continue to get better. 

Focus on helping us do that Mr. President and we’ll take care of the “regular guy” stuff.

Iowa House shouldn’t 

waste time on pointless debate

It seems there just isn’t enough to do in the Legislature this year, with education and property tax reforms having been settled and the mental health system reworked House Republicans have decided to turn their attention to something really important, abortion.

What better time to take up a pointless, divisive debate, right? Oh wait… those other issues haven’t been settled? Huh.

According to news reports House Speaker Kraig Paulsen (R- Hiawatha) said Republicans want to debate the issue because, “I think it’s important for this caucus and Republicans statewide to fight to protect life anytime we can.” 

Republicans know that this issue is going nowhere in the Senate.  The whole thing is largely symbolic and merely a chance for Republicans to get Democrats on the record about the issue. I wonder if they might then want to use that vote in an upcoming election? Meanwhile real issues, like school reform, languish.

The debate, which could begin within a few days, will be over ending, all public funding of abortions. Which at first sounds like it would be an issue worthy of discussion. Public funding sounds like it can mean lots of things, even paying for elective abortions, which may be objectionable to a lot of people and worthy of debate. But that’s not the case here.

According to the Associated Press, public funding of abortions is already rare in Iowa and only performed under what I would consider extreme circumstances.

The AP reports that public funding of abortions now is allowed only when “a doctor deems it necessary and a woman doesn’t have money or insurance coverage to pay for the procedure. State officials said they’re not sure how much money is spent on such abortions.”

I have my own concerns about abortion in general, but if the policy is as stated above, then it seems to be a legitimate health issue designed to protect the health of women who couldn’t afford to do so on their own.

Republicans object to that? The problem is their own strategy may backfire on them. 

Opponents will rightly ask Republicans what their alternative is in this situation? What are these women supposed to do? I can’t imagine that their answer will do much to foster a reputation of caring for women’s health. 

A woman’s right to have an abortion has been settled law since The Supreme Court ruled on Roe V. Wade in 1973. But since then a philosophical debate has ensued and some states have tried to chip away at the edges of the law with different restrictions including prohibiting “partial-birth” abortions, state-mandated waiting periods, including in some cases requiring parental notification.

As for public funding, 17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.

(http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf)

This is an absolutely pointless waste of time distracting the Legislature from more important business for what is essential a symbolic act. The funny thing is Paulsen himself seemed to agree just a few days ago. According to a blog entry on his website posted on April 9, (printed in full at right), the House Majority Leader writes:

“As we’re nearing the end of the session, one major issue that Iowans have asked us to address is property tax reform and relief, which the Senate still has not taken up. The looming property tax increase that is facing Iowans has yet to be acted upon by the Senate. Before the Legislature adjourns for the year, we must take up a bill that prevents this increase.”

Adding later:

“Now is the time for action, not talk on property tax reform. Iowans expect and deserve action on this legislation.
http://kraigpaulsen.com/

I couldn’t agree more. Drop the silly abortion debate and get back to work on the important issues.

Food Update:


A little bit more about the use of Ammonia in our food supply. This is a link to an article from the International Business Times. The gist of it is:


"Ammonia's not an unusual product to find added to food," Acuff said. "We use ammonia in all kinds of foods in the food industry."


http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324862/20120406/pink-slime-beef-ammonia-cheese-chocolate-scandal.htm


And another very good article in the Sioux City Journal about the dangers of another nasty sounding food additive, dihydrogen oxide


http://siouxcityjournal.com/ap/lee/chemicals-are-prevalent-in-many-foods/article_7acd7832-5480-5288-b92c-80d79dfd7135.html


In the interest of fairness here's a link to a column from Gregg McBride an "Author, screenwriter and blogger" from the Huffington Post.  Mr. McBride objects to the Governors of Iowa, Texas and Kansas for supporting the use of the product. His  argument seems to be that "Pink Slime" should be banned simply because it's gross.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregg-mcbride/pink-slime_b_1403338.html

Look out Brussel Sprouts you're next!

Pink Slime 

takes 

center stage

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Shakespeare knew what he was talking about when he wrote those lines over 400 years ago. A name is everything. Take for example the debate over lean finely textured beef, better known lately as “Pink Slime.” It’s an argument that depends almost entirely on a disgusting name and not so much on facts.

So what is this stuff? It’s a processed beef product that has inflamed celebrity chefs, bloggers and others demanding that the product be pulled. The campaign has already resulted in the closure of three processing plants and the loss of over 600 jobs. Governors in Iowa, Kansas and Texas are calling for a national investigation into the “scandal.”

It is made through a process in which the fat is cooked off and the lean meat is separated in some sort of giant spinning contraption. The result is either “lean finely textured beef,” or “pink slime” depending on your point of view. The beef that is used in the process is either, again depending on your perspective, bits of left-over scraps from the trimming process or garbage meat that was destined for pet food. The product is up to 97 percent lean and mixed with ground beef and other products. 

Once separated, the meat is given a squirt of ammonia gas to kill bacteria such as E. Coli, a process that the FDA has signed off on and is used in the production of other foods including  baked goods, cheeses, sauces and a bunch of other stuff. 

(For a list check out this site http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/details.html?id=380)

So what are the objections, other than it has an icky sounding name? Well that’s about it, really. It seems most agree that the product is safe to eat.

 “The primary objection to pink slime has nothing to do with food safety; it has to do with the revolting production practices behind this product. When you start with a pile of meat scraps that are inordinately likely to contain dangerous fecal bacteria, then use a centrifuge to wring out bits of muscle from these scraps, and finally treat the tainted output with ammonia to kill off pathogens, you end up with a product that repels informed consumers.”

So says Vegan.com

The Omaha World Hearld ran a FAQ about the issue and came up with this:

Q: So what’s the big deal?

A: Consumer petitions and advocacy groups have voiced three main concerns:

>> The USDA considers it beef and doesn’t require it to be listed as an ingredient on packages of ground beef, and people think it’s been slipped to them or schoolchildren on the sly and question why. Some beef industry advocates have suggested labels or signage could help with this.

>> Some consumers believe they have been paying too much for scraps or lower-quality ground beef.

>> Debate about the product has been an unappetizing reminder of how meat gets to store shelves, underscoring what one ag economist called a disconnect between the practice of making food in factory settings and consumers’ understanding of that.

Once summer I worked in a fish cannery in Petersburg Alaska. I worked in the cold storage side of the operation, which basically involves cleaning fish and freezing them whole. But I had friends and occasionally visited the cannery side of the operation. It’s because of what I saw there that I rarely eat canned salmon.  But it’s not because I think it’s unsafe or harmful in any way. 

Let’s put it this way, for a guy who doesn’t like the food on his plate to touch, visiting a fish cannery is not a good idea. That doesn’t make the product unhealthy or dangerous. Gross… maybe. 

Modern processing plants are generally clean and inspected regularly by the government but I think we all know, deep down inside, that there are things that happen in slaughter houses and canning factories that we’d rather not see. 

And it’s true, at least from the animals perspective - and those that would rather think of animals in terms of pets or cute wise-cracking characters on TV - that a happy ending isn’t awaiting them when they arrive.

How much you want to dwell on that is up to you. I’ve butchered animals for food and know how the line of succession works. But I don’t enjoy it and am thankful that I don’t have to do it regularly in order to feed my family.

And along those lines I don’t obsess over food additives, especially those that are there to make food safer.

Each year about 70,000 people get sick from E. Coli and around 60 of them die. I couldn’t find a single instance of a person who had gotten ill, much less died from eating finely textured beef. But never mind that, the bloggers say, it’s just a matter of time.

Deborah Dunham writes on her blog “Blisstree.com”:

“NPR just reported on the “economic impact of killing pink slime” stating that the fear over this “meat” product made by processing leftover beef trimmings has led to the closing of three meat processing plants in Kansas, Texas and Iowa.

Iowa Public Radio host, Sandhya Dirks explained that it’s the ammonia additive that is fueling the uproar:

Then they add ammonia, and that has freaked out a lot of consumers. The USDA says that it’s actually a pretty foolproof way to kill bacteria, like E. coli and salmonella. But many consumers can’t stomach the idea of eating leftover meat that’s been treated with a solvent even if they’ve been doing so for 20 years. Facebook and Twitter campaigns have put pressure on grocery chains and school boards, and it’s worked. BPI orders have slowed to a crawl. That frustrates Texas Governor Rick Perry.

To which Perry responded that it’s unfair so many people are losing their jobs over this:

I have to go back to Texas and explain to people in Amarillo why they may not have a job. And I’m telling you I don’t know the answer to that. Has there been one individual in this country that has been poisoned or has been sick or has died from a product that came out of this company?

Maybe not yet. But to be honest, no one really understands the long-term impact of eating this pink slime. It certainly can’t be good for us.

Sure, there are plenty of other unhealthy “foods” out there too that also need to be addressed. But if we are ever going to win this war against obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer, we have to start somewhere. There are plenty of healthier options that schools, in particular, could be feeding kids, and it’s unfair that they don’t really have a choice in what is served to them.”

Notice she states that “no one understands the long-term impact of eating this pink slime,” but still manages to conclude that “It certainly can’t be good for us.”

It’s clear this is an argument that is not fact-based but emotionally based - centered mostly around a name.

The celebrity chefs, bloggers and others who are championing this cause are, I think, more concerned about headlines rather than the safety of our food supply. It’s simply irresponsible on their part. Over 600 people have lost their jobs for an argument that is over-blown at best. At worst it’s fraudulent.

On Monday Iowa Governor Terry Branstad called for a congressional investigation into what he characterized as a “smear campaign” meant to discredit the product. He was joined by the Governors of Texas and Kansas.

At this point their actions are probably too late, Pink Slime has left the barn so to speak, it has entered our national lexicon. 

But I think it’s important that they act. There have been food scares in the past and will be in the future.  When appropriate the government must act to ensure we have a safe food supply but at the same time they must stand against those that would like to use our food supply to manipulate emotions for … well who knows what purpose. 

Better labeling might help and better education about our food supply would certainly help. But is all this really worth it?

In the end we all must confront Juliet’s question, “What’s in a name?”

The answer is, everything.